tv Forum Focuses on Policy Implications of South Korean Election Results CSPAN May 17, 2017 8:36am-10:01am EDT
concerns that are outstanding related to the agreement. i think in a way the bigger issues, they are looking at them from different perspectives. the koreans haven't caught up to the idea that for trump the only thing that matters is the merchandise trade balance. that is a contested view. i think even within the u.s. and probably it is going to take some effort to absorb that and try to figure out how to respond to that. they will need some time to put together a strategy on that i think. >> yeah. i think a lot of it is the intent and the messaging. you can say maybe there is a mechanism for doing that. some things didn't work out as well as you wanted to.
you can say why don't we gret the folks together and you're willing to walk away from it. if it's negotiating it may be counter productive coming in with guns ablazing and if i don't get everything i want and we will walk away and, you know, you kind of get whiplash of it on the messaging. you know, similarly with the
comments during the campaign last year on the cost sharing agreement. we want 100% reimbursement or we walk. that sort of makes an alliance a bit of an arrangement. it doesn't address it is in u.s. national interest to have alliances. it is in u.s. national interest because we have such national interest not only in asia and europe. it's in to have our forces overseas. it's a stabilizing mechanism not only for our allies but for us. it's not that we need 100% reimbursement because a lot of it is -- >> if you were advising him right now what would you say he should do to win the support of the american people?
we shouldn't just simply look at the amount of profits, gains from trade but these to force relations by ensuring -- so i think we are concerned about the th kind of situation. >> do you any advice for the president? >> let me just say, we have many in the audience who are really the person this issue should probably be directed to for comment. you know, if i can address the political demention of this. if we look back and look at who will be advising, you know,
essentially what it means is it's likely he has people in his camp, some of who are pro alliance. this alliance versus a ton my is really a major tension that has been there. what it tells us, i think, is if the u.s. can manage it well in order to ensure we are promoting the pro alliance people and don't get ton wrong side then many of these issues can be dealt with in a rather quiet way. where the u.s. makes unilateral statements, i can think of a few recent examples that rere sason for us. >> you have coauthored a book
about korean/japanese relations. what do you expect sole relations and i would like to hear your views about beijing as well. >> newly elected in his inauguration address indicated his willingness to go to washington, beijing and to tokyo and in order to further south korean security sbretss, he has one obstacle in terms of his own political presence during the campaign and that is that he abdomen all of the other can candidates agreed. i think a lot hinges on how the south korean policy advisers
decided to frame this issue. if trying to reopen the issue is putting themselves back in the same box where it is a condition for all other aspects of the relationship we'll see a relationship and it will be a real drag on south korean foreign to policy. if we can don't try to address the task while also moving forward i think it offers an alternative pathway. we'll have to wait and see. >> do you any views about relations with tokyo and beij g
i think. the past administration was not in a code with international law. so it eventually worsened among korean people. so i believe the agreement needs to be re-examined. >> what about in terms of china? what do you think he will do? >> he moved from opposition to really being on the fence. he kept sort of saying well, the next government should deal with that. you will be the next government. he just sort of kept trying to
punt on that. you know, more recently, as i said, i think he serves well. it is sort of a done deal. why wouldn't it be a done deal after five or four or three? and given the north korean threat to you now that they have miniaturized, they have weapon dcweapo weaponiz weaponized. where as in the past he said skud missiles, they don't have a military target. it's like well, sir, the only military target they have is south korea. i think at least in my view it's a question of south korean's f sovereignty. if you're willing to negotiate that way with china you're willing to negotiate anything
away. they have tried to offer technical briefings and they refused. how can they talk about it and he turned it down. they know it's not only false, it's disingenuous. i think it raises some concerns. >> i mean we agreed before that the election was basically based on domestic issues. in terms of domestic policy he has proposed ways to restructure the conglomerate. he wants to spend more public funds and creating jobs before you reduce the unemployment in that sector and to spend more on infrastructure to stimulate the economy.
>> how effective do you think or can you be in getting that legislation crew parliment? >> he obviously needs cooperation. the other aspect of the current situation in south korea is when the park administration came in national assembly reached an agreement that nothing would move forward unless all of the parties have consensus or unless a single party can mobilize 60%.
so he has some real challenges. the advantage that he has is in this environment i think a lot of elements of the platform and agenda in terms of having job expansion, public sector job expansion in order to address high unemployment levels among youth, the need for rolling out a stronger set of public services to support elderly. the issue of trying to address common equality and the kind of advantages, those are all things that have relatively broad and are -- we have come to a point where there is a recognition and necessity to move forward. even it was lip service.
it just didn't happen. >> do you think we would see some type of trade off of let's say him softening his policy or what he wants to see for getting conservative votes for corporate reforms? >> it is probably going to be domest domestic. that's where you need to spend your political capital. >> right. >> and we'll have to see how it plays out. >> do you think that he can achieve his legislative goals or what type of deals will he need to do to cut with the conservative opposition? >> i can help him.
>> and all of the custom in politics, so i think they can make the same policy. >> so scott, what do you think is going to be president un's priorities. where do you think that will go? >> i think most of it, well, the way he work worded the inauguration he put security first. so i do think the importance of
the need to fill the political vacuum that was kpitsed for the past six months, but, you know, the real driver will have to be turning to get the economy moving, try to add dretsz issues of transparencies. that security will wind up being his number one concern. >> i think first of all certainly he wants -- i think he wants to try to do something. i think the korean public really wants to do something to change, which seems to be corruption and sort of the government relationship. so i think there's sort of a e
tsunami to do things. i think it's a bridge to see the party holding reform hostage to softening or hardening in north korea policy. i think back of he wanted to come thin and had very strong support. the national economy then the people kind of flip-flopped. they are like let's not do that. it is such an oversized impact. then people are saying let's back off. there's a bit of a to and from on that. if they started impacting money making operations for the country i believe he is still 25%, if it impacts at a time
together. if it's north korea did this. we need to increase pressure, more sanctions, do this. say no no. we need to lower the tension and maybe it's only they are doing that because of the u.s. actions that's where you can have some convergence. so you now have not only the uc u.n. sanctions they are pushing the previous administration that they have been reluctant to do or a new administration and then another parallel track is others going around the world talking to others, raising crimes against humanity, the wages of the overseas worker, crimes against humanity, mass
destruction in the civilian airport. it weaned away more of the north korean business partners. if you think of if he finally got the townspeople energized and finally, is he going to be -- guys, there's a secret exit over here. and if south korea implements the required reform. you're you could see a softening of the international coalition. >> what do you think that president unwill focus on the
economy rather than on security? >> yes. i had some misunderstanding. can i speak korean? >> this is an english channel. two things is very important. first of all is -- >> let me speak on the misunderstandings that supreme on mr. un. oftentimes people say that mr. unmay be pushing for a more severe and that he would some how take away power.
that's not what he is intending to do. what he wants to do is for his party as well. they want to make it more of a competitor. he wants it to be more transparent. it would lead to the companies being more competitive and on the global market. is it is not by way of more regulations. but allowing for them to operate more on the global platform. he does not want this. he wants this to be global
companies. and under the u.s. alliance we intend to resolve the north korean nuclear issues. it's not like we will be an everlasting friend to north korea. that's not what he wants to do. >> sure. he made some very important points. i think they are there in the platforms. the question that i think people here maybe are still asking themselves is it really going to happen? the answer really is we have got to hold him to his promises and his platform. if that happens we'll be on the
microphones. you can wait and wait until the person with the microphone comes. >> okay. >> yeah. excellent discussion. i have an expertise in korean affairs. the item that was touched on a little bit but we didn't talk about it a lot was the beijing -- i mean covering all of the points you guys discussed is where does repairing relations with beijing stack in
it. >> is because of your ally that is taking these offensive actions and capabilities of put in place that are threatening south korea that we are doing this. so sort of it is a national security issue. it is a matter of ksovereignty. let's talk about the range of other things. i think when we have north korea or the way it continually or threatens and stuff it sort of raises the true nature of the regime. if china continues to pursue this economic warfare then someone who i think would be more likely to be aligned with china or want to improve relations with china, if china is even doing it then i think the problems will continue.
>> yeah, beijing economic repression and retaliation that they are carrying out, it is actually not just hurting the koreans, it also hurts the people in china. why does china keep on doing this when it hurts them as well? so china wants something from us and by pressuring south korea china wants to see a change not just in korea but the u.s. and japan as well as north korea. by doing all of these they want the parties to come together. all of the interested parties to come together and discuss a
resolution and because we have decided not to discuss or come to dialogues and china is frustrated because they are unable to bring any resolution. so that -- in that regard i blame her. she refused to talk with china on these various issues including security issues. i think it's important that when ever we take measures that we don't do it on our own but actually as a result of having discussed what this is with other neighbors. >> i think they should focus
rather than necessarily allowing themselves to be drawn into this strategic enter play. i don't think it will be profitable for south korea precisely because it exaggerates the issue. it plays into china's attempt to use it as leverage. >> thanks very much. great discussion, as always. i'm seeking clarity and i guess you are too on if there is to be a renewed south korean diplomatic initiative with north
korea, is it clear yet whether president unwill try to keep it off to one side and focus on the economic and family reunion and that kind of thing or has he been clear that negotiations have to include from south korean standpoint and on the strategic issues, has he been clear on this key question, negotiating a freeze with north korea. it runs the risk. i'm sorry i haven't found it. i haven't looked hard. trump is not doing that iert. if you have thoughts on what the u.s. may be heading towards that would be useful. if we are going to have talks what's he going to talk about? is he going to try combined
strategic economic or one or the other? thank you. >> i would say the first issue is really -- in a way he already issued his statement of desire to reengage with north korea. he is appointed head of national security which is a veteran in 2000 and 2007. you know, he is doing everything he can to signal an openness and willingness to reestablish dialogue. ton north korean side i don't think they with con figured yet. they have a military man whose life has been -- i they they
will focus on family reunions and build up from there. i think a lot of the advisers seem to want to get back to simultaneous action, which north korea is the one that stepped away from simultaneous action. then there's also the challenge of north korea wants it and i think over the course of the past decade it has become an issue that south koreans feel they have a stake in. it means the administration
cannot escape finding ways to address that as part of their process for moving forward. they are looking for flexibility in terms of how. i think that's lot of internal debate, which i think will be influenced by the international environment and by consultations with the united states. >> we don't know the sequencing or conditionality. he wants to talk about a wide range of issues. he raised peace treaty getting back to the six party talks. i believe he talked about the freeze. he wants to have dialogue. you know, he said as scott pointed out he wants to strengthen defenses and then enga
enga engageed. it the reason the u.s. pushed the six party talks because the u.s. had heard complaints from south korea where we were negotiating their security above their heads. that's why we wanted to six party talks to be in the room because everyone has different priorities or different issues. so, you know, again, how is that implemented? is that in close consultation with the u.s. and we both agree on what south korea will do. will it go its own way gor further than we are comfortable with just as south korea felt we were doing. i think one issue i think i hope he brings up is human rights.
you had an administration largely by human rights advocates. they felt it would undermine their traction with north korea. they refused to sign u.n. agreements. so, you know, and allegations are that -- asking them what they thought about criticizing him and said you don't want to do that. so i do hope human rights is a strong issue in the korean dialogue. >> i think he is quite different from the former president.
>> thank you. asking about a doe mes ig issue. the south korean government has had difficulties responding to emergencies within their country. thinking especially about the ferry disaster. are there any indications it will be on this agenda or too far down the list? thank you. >>. [ inaudible question ] >> i did not see that addressed among the top 20 policy parties -- huh?
program. i think for example mr. trump may suggest he takes one among two options. for example, option one, just take some burden of operation costs or expense or you can just give me your idea to review trade deficit. so there are [ inaudible question ] >> well, i think it will be a critical event in framing i
think both leaders will have an interest in establishing some indication they can work with each other because they have to live with each other for at least four years. so i think both sides will work hard on that. with regards to the issue linkage, i'm not a fan of that particular approach and i'm not sure it is really effective. those are the hardest kind of negotiations between allies, the negotiations that are issues related to the budget. i'm sure that both sides will try their best, but in the end i think they will have to find some kind of acome base. frankly he has already indicated he is willing to spend more on defense. he wants a lot of that to be on
self-strengthening. i think it can be part of a discussion. we'll have to see. i mean with regards to the deployment, i really don't see any possibility or any reason why the south korean government would pay for the deployment that's already gone on. as far as i understand it was not part of the deal. going forward, if south korea wants to buy more batteries, although it doesn't sound like he is really interested in that product, not sure that we would sell it. so let's see. >> i think on linking economics and national security i mean on one hand you look at the totality of a relationship between two countries. you don't want to hold sort of everything hostage over one issue. on the other hand i don't think you want to make it a quid pro
quo. look where there's a sense of, yeah, i'm going to redue trade pressure on china in response so their wonderful help they would make on north door ree ya. you kind of address each issue. you don't sacrifice them over china doing what it promised before. you know, i don't think you make that kind of deal. so, you know, that said you don't stove pipe issues. they do kind of influence each other. it's not a very good answer. i don't think you want to make a -- you know, we'll sacrifice this economic issue in return for you pag for something.
>> anybody else? >> yes. a couple of political science type of questions. winning percentage is 41 pk. is it less than he fot five years ago? did he show great growth in his support rate over the course of the campaign? it seems like mr. hall was third or fourth who gradually moved up. was that done at the expense of on support and looking at the national assembly which is now i think almost a stagnant assembly in terms of getting anything done, it seems the third party
there or peoples party has about 35, 40 seats, are they the king pen in how the national assembly -- it will be around for three years. i think social security a change sortly after the presidential vote. it seems like well have a -- a i guess he was more on the -- with the democratic party in the past. twlas likelihood of that kind of development in order to breakthrough for no progress at
all? >> i think i'm sure numbers -- i think un this time had a lower number than he had five years ago but it was a totally different race. that race was two people and now you had five. you know, of different strengths. i don't think you can really compare the numbers as to if he had a lower number. it shows he had less widespread support. it was a very different race. obviously korea is divided. whether you have the idealdivide there are that he will try to y unite order to rule. i think use of fire axes and fire extinguishers and everything in a free and frank exchange of ideas. one of my favorite pictures from
years ago was a photo of two national assembly members. the caption was national assembly members debate peace initiative. it was sort of a great thing. i think rather than sort of saying hey, folks, could you not fall off against each other it really created sag nancy. i think the rule change and this division, it does seem a recipe for continued stagnation. he was complaining that sort of things couldn't get done when she had a ruling party. we will hope that they the move forward in the right direction. i think just like in any country you'll have a lot of stag nancy an and divisions in getting things done. >> every nation has a division,
woman and a man. korea has a division issue. and when i was congressman just four years, we never seen the fighting in the national assembly again. and that is a systematically we cannot. we didn't. we cannot -- to the fighting -- and that means that the korea is changing now. and is going to better politics system. as to he said five years ago mr. moon getting maybe about 48%,
now -- but he was lost. but he now this time he got a 41%. but he won. it is changing. and there are so many changing because especially mr. moon really tried to focus reform of all the custom in the politics and economic system. so i expect changing the new korea and we can expect i think. >> there's an immediate test, really, of moon's strength that is directly related to this question and that is he named his prime minister, the governor of a province. i can't remember if it's south or north. the south province. who will now be put up for
national assembly hearings and there will be a vote. but also, you know, the main support from the people's party, the smaller progressive party, is really from that province. so i think that moon is already essentially making a kind of bid for support that is also designed to build a -- some kind of working consensus that will allow him to move forward if nothing else, he'll have -- in fact he exhibited stronger support from that province during the election campaign. he's now provided a kind of reward to the province, and a potential lever to be able to at least insure that he has a working coalition and the possibility of gaining majority support. it doesn't yet mean i think, that he can quite reach that 60%
threshold. they're very close. i'm not sure the exact numbers. but i think they would need to win a few bye elecs in order to be able to overcome that level. >> i'll give you the last. >> there's a gentleman behind you. >> sorry. thanks. nicholas, is there anything that president moon can learn from other world leaders of countries where the trump administration or president trump during the campaign had harsh words for and how those leaders have tried to deal with president trump now he's in office? in particular some of the asian leaders like prime minister abe or prime minister turnbull from australia? >> play golf. but i don't think moon plays golf. >> he better learn. >> he can't.
>> he can -- he really enjoy hiking. hiking with trump yeah. i think there are so many hiking place in mar-a-lago. >> can we squeeze one more question in? >> a little more serious, it would be simplistic to assume if he compliments trump. the guidance to moon would be there are questions there are concerns, misperceptions, perceptions about you and your policies and you platform. people have imprinted it on to you because you were the commander in chie chief of staff, rightly or wrongly. if you're calling or meeting with trump highlight the consurgenco convergence, we like hearing the
korean war and rebuilding of the country. that's an issue that others have always emphasized. highlighting the embrace of democracy and rule of law and respect for human rights, et cetera. t the alliance, facing common enemies, you lead with that and that creates a good foundation. if you have a good foundation, a good personal relationship and a good bilateral relationship, you know, then if you have disagreements, well, you sort of deal with that. things like the civilian nuclear deal, the one two three agreement between the u.s. and south korea, i had thought that would cause a lot more problems. but it was because the relationship was so positive at the time, and i think a lot of people did a lot of behind the scenes briefing to newspapers and stuff of explaining the details. it was okay, we had differences, neither side won everything, okay. where's if the relationship had
been more tense at the time that could have led to anti-american demonstrations or take it a bit far. you need to establish a personal relationship based on shared objectives and values first. >> just a brief with two part question. please feel free to give short answers because i know we're close on time. but to national assemblyman son, we had policy, where korea try today work with countries beyond northeast asia and do things around the world. that somewhat fell off under park geun-hye, do you see president moon trying to be more involved on a global basis or do you see him focusing more on the region? scott, sort of related question would be much of the cooperation was done with the united states on various projects. you've done a lot of work on this, maybe even a shorter question, do you see the trump administration interested in continuing that cooperation or
uninterested? >> i think mr. moon have same policy about economic or trade policies with park geun-hye or not the same, maybe i think developing policy. more to the globalist, i think. and you can find his policy in this election, more globalization, his policy i think. >> i mean, i actually think that the precursor to the global korea policy were evident, and
therefore, i think this aspiration to play a broader role, it really comes clear in the moon platforms in his emphasis on responsibility. i think we'll see that, but i also believe it's going to be more focused, you know, we'll have to see what the scope is in terms of how moon defines his policy. i have a feeling it might remain a little bit more regional. in the official phase. will the trump administration engage in that way? i mean, those are kind of the parts of our broader policy that seem to be under stress or under duress in terms of budget support, et cetera. so we'll have to see. >> no, i think just maybe on the global korea -- i wonder if some of that was driven by if the u.s. under bush was looking to do a number of things overseas and whether it was we were asking korea to do things or whether they were offering to do
that. whereas if trump is perhaps going to be more insular, not do a number of the things that, you know, bush wanted to do overseas if he's going to be more -- not isolationists, but transactional or whatever, then there's not that pull from the u.s. for south korea to be playing a larger role. but i think one thing that i often hear from korean colleagues, is they'll point to korea hosting a big event and say this is our coming out party? what about the g-20 or nuclear summit. you've arrived, you're a small country but punching extremely above your weight. you know, you are a player on the world stage. so you have impact, you know, disproportionally to your size, of population and geography. i think whether moon talks about being a global country or not, korea does have an impact on the world stage.
i think that's a positive thing for whoever the south korean president is, perhaps they don't realize the impact that south korea does and can have. >> okay. thank you very much, i hope you found it a stimulating discussion. i want to thank our distinguished panel and please give them a big round of applause. [ applause ]